OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 19, 2014, 10:38:12 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Show off your Guns!  (Read 20740 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Bigsinner
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA  (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 436



« Reply #270 on: July 20, 2012, 03:33:44 PM »

Wow... I actually agree with Michal Kalina. Thank God I live in an area without snakes and guns.

Have you ever thought about guns in a sexual way?
Back when I was a Marine, I would often sleep with my rifle.

This highlights a good point.  Did you ever have carnal (well, as carnal as steel and wood can be) relations with your rifle?  Did you ever fantasize about having a fulfilling relationship with your rifle?  Did you imagine having a house and a yard and a dog with your rifle, imagining how your little PtA/M14 hybrid children would look like?

Or is it entirely possible that to you the rifle was a tool?  Is it possible to you that there were non sexual reasons for you to have the rifle?  Perhaps sleeping with it had something to do with your training rather than some deep seated sexual desire for it?

Michal does not seem to accept that people who have firearms have them for non sexual reasons.  He seems to be incapable of separating sexual desire from other types of emotions.  It would be fascinating to learn what is the root of his extensive comparisons between firearms and phalluses.  It can be assumed that he is lacking in experience with firearms.  But why would this lack of experience be constantly coupled with something else?  Where did this connection come from?

This is hard for me to come to grasps with.  I mean, there are numerous females out there that I enjoy the company of but have no desire to view in a sexual manner - my mother, younger females that I have met, wives of people I respect...  I can talk to my mother and enjoy her company without sexualizing my relationship with her.  Likewise, I can sleep with a handgun next to my bed without thinking about it once in a sexual manner.  I wonder what causes Michal to hear about firearms and immediately jump to conclusions of a sexual nature?  It's kind of weird, to be honest. 
I have the same confusion, especially when one could attribute the same argument for practically everything in the world.  Pens, pencils, fingernail files, lamps, smoking pipes, cigars, rulers, levels, screwdrivers, and the endless list goes on.  A very confusing way of looking at life.

In an attempt to clear up your confusion, I believe this sexual theme was introduced by MKalina in an attempt to ridicule or silence, through shame, those with whom the poster disagreed.  When you can't counter the message, attack the messenger.

If anyone has read my posts on firearms and their possession, you will see that I (and most, if not all, who agree with my position) have not personally attacked those with whom I disagree.  I have not questioned their personal morality the way some of the anti-gun folks have.  Pointing out perceived faults with, and even ridiculing, your opponents' ARGUMENTS, is different from calling into question your opponents' personal morality.   Such personal attacks are inappropriate,.   
Why are so many people so inclined to take arguments so personally?
emphasis added

I thought I was clear; however I shall try again.  An impersonal argument criticizing one's position or one's reasoning should not be taken personally.  A personal attack on one's morality should be taken personally.  Do you see the difference?  Implying that your opponent is a pervert because he disagrees with you on gun control is a personal attack, not an argument.

Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,153


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #271 on: July 20, 2012, 03:34:49 PM »

Wow... I actually agree with Michal Kalina. Thank God I live in an area without snakes and guns.

Have you ever thought about guns in a sexual way?
Back when I was a Marine, I would often sleep with my rifle.

This highlights a good point.  Did you ever have carnal (well, as carnal as steel and wood can be) relations with your rifle?  Did you ever fantasize about having a fulfilling relationship with your rifle?  Did you imagine having a house and a yard and a dog with your rifle, imagining how your little PtA/M14 hybrid children would look like?

Or is it entirely possible that to you the rifle was a tool?  Is it possible to you that there were non sexual reasons for you to have the rifle?  Perhaps sleeping with it had something to do with your training rather than some deep seated sexual desire for it?

Michal does not seem to accept that people who have firearms have them for non sexual reasons.  He seems to be incapable of separating sexual desire from other types of emotions.  It would be fascinating to learn what is the root of his extensive comparisons between firearms and phalluses.  It can be assumed that he is lacking in experience with firearms.  But why would this lack of experience be constantly coupled with something else?  Where did this connection come from?

This is hard for me to come to grasps with.  I mean, there are numerous females out there that I enjoy the company of but have no desire to view in a sexual manner - my mother, younger females that I have met, wives of people I respect...  I can talk to my mother and enjoy her company without sexualizing my relationship with her.  Likewise, I can sleep with a handgun next to my bed without thinking about it once in a sexual manner.  I wonder what causes Michal to hear about firearms and immediately jump to conclusions of a sexual nature?  It's kind of weird, to be honest. 
I have the same confusion, especially when one could attribute the same argument for practically everything in the world.  Pens, pencils, fingernail files, lamps, smoking pipes, cigars, rulers, levels, screwdrivers, and the endless list goes on.  A very confusing way of looking at life.

In an attempt to clear up your confusion, I believe this sexual theme was introduced by MKalina in an attempt to ridicule or silence, through shame, those with whom the poster disagreed.  When you can't counter the message, attack the messenger.

If anyone has read my posts on firearms and their possession, you will see that I (and most, if not all, who agree with my position) have not personally attacked those with whom I disagree.  I have not questioned their personal morality the way some of the anti-gun folks have.  Pointing out perceived faults with, and even ridiculing, your opponents' ARGUMENTS, is different from calling into question your opponents' personal morality.   Such personal attacks are inappropriate,.   
Why are so many people so inclined to take arguments so personally?
emphasis added

I thought I was clear; however I shall try again.  An impersonal argument criticizing one's position or one's reasoning should not be taken personally.  A personal attack on one's morality should be taken personally.  Do you see the difference?  Implying that your opponent is a pervert because he disagrees with you on gun control is a personal attack, not an argument.


But Mike never made that implication, which means you're reading that implication into what he wrote.
Logged
Kerdy
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,735


« Reply #272 on: July 20, 2012, 03:36:23 PM »

I believe a couple of people mentioned this, but I am still at a loss to why or how they make this connection.  I do not see the rational purpose of attributing anything with male anatomy unless there is a solid connection.  It's a weak debating point, especially when considering its wrong.  I also don't understand why otherwise intelligent men of God can't civilly disagree.
« Last Edit: July 20, 2012, 03:39:18 PM by Kerdy » Logged
Bigsinner
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA  (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 436



« Reply #273 on: July 20, 2012, 03:36:45 PM »

Wow... I actually agree with Michal Kalina. Thank God I live in an area without snakes and guns.

Have you ever thought about guns in a sexual way?
Back when I was a Marine, I would often sleep with my rifle.

This highlights a good point.  Did you ever have carnal (well, as carnal as steel and wood can be) relations with your rifle?  Did you ever fantasize about having a fulfilling relationship with your rifle?  Did you imagine having a house and a yard and a dog with your rifle, imagining how your little PtA/M14 hybrid children would look like?

Or is it entirely possible that to you the rifle was a tool?  Is it possible to you that there were non sexual reasons for you to have the rifle?  Perhaps sleeping with it had something to do with your training rather than some deep seated sexual desire for it?

Michal does not seem to accept that people who have firearms have them for non sexual reasons.  He seems to be incapable of separating sexual desire from other types of emotions.  It would be fascinating to learn what is the root of his extensive comparisons between firearms and phalluses.  It can be assumed that he is lacking in experience with firearms.  But why would this lack of experience be constantly coupled with something else?  Where did this connection come from?

This is hard for me to come to grasps with.  I mean, there are numerous females out there that I enjoy the company of but have no desire to view in a sexual manner - my mother, younger females that I have met, wives of people I respect...  I can talk to my mother and enjoy her company without sexualizing my relationship with her.  Likewise, I can sleep with a handgun next to my bed without thinking about it once in a sexual manner.  I wonder what causes Michal to hear about firearms and immediately jump to conclusions of a sexual nature?  It's kind of weird, to be honest. 
I have the same confusion, especially when one could attribute the same argument for practically everything in the world.  Pens, pencils, fingernail files, lamps, smoking pipes, cigars, rulers, levels, screwdrivers, and the endless list goes on.  A very confusing way of looking at life.

In an attempt to clear up your confusion, I believe this sexual theme was introduced by MKalina in an attempt to ridicule or silence, through shame, those with whom the poster disagreed.  When you can't counter the message, attack the messenger.

If anyone has read my posts on firearms and their possession, you will see that I (and most, if not all, who agree with my position) have not personally attacked those with whom I disagree.  I have not questioned their personal morality the way some of the anti-gun folks have.  Pointing out perceived faults with, and even ridiculing, your opponents' ARGUMENTS, is different from calling into question your opponents' personal morality.   Such personal attacks are inappropriate,.   

Sometimes it's useful to respond to ridicule with ridicule.
emphasis added

Ridiculing an argument or the implications of an argument is different from personally attacking your opponent's morality.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,153


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #274 on: July 20, 2012, 03:37:04 PM »

Wow... I actually agree with Michal Kalina. Thank God I live in an area without snakes and guns.

Have you ever thought about guns in a sexual way?
Back when I was a Marine, I would often sleep with my rifle.

This highlights a good point.  Did you ever have carnal (well, as carnal as steel and wood can be) relations with your rifle?  Did you ever fantasize about having a fulfilling relationship with your rifle?  Did you imagine having a house and a yard and a dog with your rifle, imagining how your little PtA/M14 hybrid children would look like?

Or is it entirely possible that to you the rifle was a tool?  Is it possible to you that there were non sexual reasons for you to have the rifle?  Perhaps sleeping with it had something to do with your training rather than some deep seated sexual desire for it?

Michal does not seem to accept that people who have firearms have them for non sexual reasons.  He seems to be incapable of separating sexual desire from other types of emotions.  It would be fascinating to learn what is the root of his extensive comparisons between firearms and phalluses.  It can be assumed that he is lacking in experience with firearms.  But why would this lack of experience be constantly coupled with something else?  Where did this connection come from?

This is hard for me to come to grasps with.  I mean, there are numerous females out there that I enjoy the company of but have no desire to view in a sexual manner - my mother, younger females that I have met, wives of people I respect...  I can talk to my mother and enjoy her company without sexualizing my relationship with her.  Likewise, I can sleep with a handgun next to my bed without thinking about it once in a sexual manner.  I wonder what causes Michal to hear about firearms and immediately jump to conclusions of a sexual nature?  It's kind of weird, to be honest. 
I have the same confusion, especially when one could attribute the same argument for practically everything in the world.  Pens, pencils, fingernail files, lamps, smoking pipes, cigars, rulers, levels, screwdrivers, and the endless list goes on.  A very confusing way of looking at life.

In an attempt to clear up your confusion, I believe this sexual theme was introduced by MKalina in an attempt to ridicule or silence, through shame, those with whom the poster disagreed.  When you can't counter the message, attack the messenger.

If anyone has read my posts on firearms and their possession, you will see that I (and most, if not all, who agree with my position) have not personally attacked those with whom I disagree.  I have not questioned their personal morality the way some of the anti-gun folks have.  Pointing out perceived faults with, and even ridiculing, your opponents' ARGUMENTS, is different from calling into question your opponents' personal morality.   Such personal attacks are inappropriate,.   

Sometimes it's useful to respond to ridicule with ridicule.
Indeed! Even though my opposition to most proposed gun control laws appears to put me at disagreement with Mike, I do agree with him that Kerdy's statement that guns are not made to kill anyone is totally absurd and deserving of ridicule. Guns ARE made to kill people.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,153


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #275 on: July 20, 2012, 03:38:13 PM »

Wow... I actually agree with Michal Kalina. Thank God I live in an area without snakes and guns.

Have you ever thought about guns in a sexual way?
Back when I was a Marine, I would often sleep with my rifle.

This highlights a good point.  Did you ever have carnal (well, as carnal as steel and wood can be) relations with your rifle?  Did you ever fantasize about having a fulfilling relationship with your rifle?  Did you imagine having a house and a yard and a dog with your rifle, imagining how your little PtA/M14 hybrid children would look like?

Or is it entirely possible that to you the rifle was a tool?  Is it possible to you that there were non sexual reasons for you to have the rifle?  Perhaps sleeping with it had something to do with your training rather than some deep seated sexual desire for it?

Michal does not seem to accept that people who have firearms have them for non sexual reasons.  He seems to be incapable of separating sexual desire from other types of emotions.  It would be fascinating to learn what is the root of his extensive comparisons between firearms and phalluses.  It can be assumed that he is lacking in experience with firearms.  But why would this lack of experience be constantly coupled with something else?  Where did this connection come from?

This is hard for me to come to grasps with.  I mean, there are numerous females out there that I enjoy the company of but have no desire to view in a sexual manner - my mother, younger females that I have met, wives of people I respect...  I can talk to my mother and enjoy her company without sexualizing my relationship with her.  Likewise, I can sleep with a handgun next to my bed without thinking about it once in a sexual manner.  I wonder what causes Michal to hear about firearms and immediately jump to conclusions of a sexual nature?  It's kind of weird, to be honest. 
I have the same confusion, especially when one could attribute the same argument for practically everything in the world.  Pens, pencils, fingernail files, lamps, smoking pipes, cigars, rulers, levels, screwdrivers, and the endless list goes on.  A very confusing way of looking at life.

In an attempt to clear up your confusion, I believe this sexual theme was introduced by MKalina in an attempt to ridicule or silence, through shame, those with whom the poster disagreed.  When you can't counter the message, attack the messenger.

If anyone has read my posts on firearms and their possession, you will see that I (and most, if not all, who agree with my position) have not personally attacked those with whom I disagree.  I have not questioned their personal morality the way some of the anti-gun folks have.  Pointing out perceived faults with, and even ridiculing, your opponents' ARGUMENTS, is different from calling into question your opponents' personal morality.   Such personal attacks are inappropriate,.   

Sometimes it's useful to respond to ridicule with ridicule.
emphasis added

Ridiculing an argument or the implications of an argument is different from personally attacking your opponent's morality.
But Mike never attacked his opponents' morality, which means you must be reading that attack into his words.
Logged
Kerdy
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,735


« Reply #276 on: July 20, 2012, 03:41:52 PM »

Wow... I actually agree with Michal Kalina. Thank God I live in an area without snakes and guns.

Have you ever thought about guns in a sexual way?
Back when I was a Marine, I would often sleep with my rifle.

This highlights a good point.  Did you ever have carnal (well, as carnal as steel and wood can be) relations with your rifle?  Did you ever fantasize about having a fulfilling relationship with your rifle?  Did you imagine having a house and a yard and a dog with your rifle, imagining how your little PtA/M14 hybrid children would look like?

Or is it entirely possible that to you the rifle was a tool?  Is it possible to you that there were non sexual reasons for you to have the rifle?  Perhaps sleeping with it had something to do with your training rather than some deep seated sexual desire for it?

Michal does not seem to accept that people who have firearms have them for non sexual reasons.  He seems to be incapable of separating sexual desire from other types of emotions.  It would be fascinating to learn what is the root of his extensive comparisons between firearms and phalluses.  It can be assumed that he is lacking in experience with firearms.  But why would this lack of experience be constantly coupled with something else?  Where did this connection come from?

This is hard for me to come to grasps with.  I mean, there are numerous females out there that I enjoy the company of but have no desire to view in a sexual manner - my mother, younger females that I have met, wives of people I respect...  I can talk to my mother and enjoy her company without sexualizing my relationship with her.  Likewise, I can sleep with a handgun next to my bed without thinking about it once in a sexual manner.  I wonder what causes Michal to hear about firearms and immediately jump to conclusions of a sexual nature?  It's kind of weird, to be honest. 
I have the same confusion, especially when one could attribute the same argument for practically everything in the world.  Pens, pencils, fingernail files, lamps, smoking pipes, cigars, rulers, levels, screwdrivers, and the endless list goes on.  A very confusing way of looking at life.

In an attempt to clear up your confusion, I believe this sexual theme was introduced by MKalina in an attempt to ridicule or silence, through shame, those with whom the poster disagreed.  When you can't counter the message, attack the messenger.

If anyone has read my posts on firearms and their possession, you will see that I (and most, if not all, who agree with my position) have not personally attacked those with whom I disagree.  I have not questioned their personal morality the way some of the anti-gun folks have.  Pointing out perceived faults with, and even ridiculing, your opponents' ARGUMENTS, is different from calling into question your opponents' personal morality.   Such personal attacks are inappropriate,.   

Sometimes it's useful to respond to ridicule with ridicule.
Indeed! Even though my opposition to most proposed gun control laws appears to put me at disagreement with Mike, I do agree with him that Kerdy's statement that guns are not made to kill anyone is totally absurd and deserving of ridicule. Guns ARE made to kill people.
A 410 shotgun was designed for the sole purpose of killing another human being?  Odd way of looking at it.  I disagree.
Logged
Bigsinner
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA  (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 436



« Reply #277 on: July 20, 2012, 03:49:54 PM »

Firearms are not made to murder or kill anyone.

Some people use them as sexual prosthesises

Quote
How many people do you know who go hunting and carry a pistol for defense against wild animals (snakes, boar, wild dogs or cats)?

It would be a funny thing to see man trying to shoot a snake. Do you shoot mosquitoes too?

Quote
Shotguns and rifles are for hunting, but can be refitted for other applications such as military use, etc.

Yeah, "military use" does not require killing anyone.

Quote
What is wrong with being able to defend your daughter or wife against someone who is about to rape and kill them?  Nothing.  What is wrong with stopping a horrific crime in action in a public area?  Nothing.  What is wrong with eliminating the threat of violence in church?  Nothing.

From the Christian PON? I wouldn't be so sure.
emphasis added

Quote from PeterTheAleut:

But Mike never made that implication, which means you're reading that implication into what he wrote.

Please, pray tell, explain how accusing your opponents of using a firearm "as a sexual prosthesis" is not an attack on one's morality? Wouldn't using a firearm as such a prosthesis constitute an act which upon which the Church would frown?  Aside from being an improper personal attack, and not an argument either for, or against CCW in Church, I also believe such inappropriate "arguments" are inappropriate in the public portion of this forum.  

« Last Edit: July 20, 2012, 03:51:26 PM by Bigsinner » Logged
mike
Warned
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,536


« Reply #278 on: July 20, 2012, 03:54:52 PM »

Hmm...




“A gun is psychologically a penis-substitute and a symbol of power: the age-range of toy-shop clientele begins at about six or seven, rises sharply just before puberty and declines soon after the discovery of the phallus and its promise of power. From then on, guns are for kids and for the effete freaks and misfits who must seek psycho-orgasmic relief by shooting pheasants.”
― Adam Hall, The Quiller Memorandum

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/75699-a-gun-is-psychologically-a-penis-substitute-and-a-symbol-of
Logged
vamrat
Vamratoraptor
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Serbian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: New Gracanica
Posts: 8,012



« Reply #279 on: July 20, 2012, 04:00:33 PM »

Hmm...




“A gun is psychologically a penis-substitute and a symbol of power: the age-range of toy-shop clientele begins at about six or seven, rises sharply just before puberty and declines soon after the discovery of the phallus and its promise of power. From then on, guns are for kids and for the effete freaks and misfits who must seek psycho-orgasmic relief by shooting pheasants.”
― Adam Hall, The Quiller Memorandum

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/75699-a-gun-is-psychologically-a-penis-substitute-and-a-symbol-of

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Logged

Das ist des Jägers Ehrenschild, daß er beschützt und hegt sein Wild, weidmännisch jagt, wie sich’s gehört, den Schöpfer im Geschöpfe ehrt.
Kerdy
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,735


« Reply #280 on: July 20, 2012, 04:03:28 PM »

Hmm...




“A gun is psychologically a penis-substitute and a symbol of power: the age-range of toy-shop clientele begins at about six or seven, rises sharply just before puberty and declines soon after the discovery of the phallus and its promise of power. From then on, guns are for kids and for the effete freaks and misfits who must seek psycho-orgasmic relief by shooting pheasants.”
― Adam Hall, The Quiller Memorandum

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/75699-a-gun-is-psychologically-a-penis-substitute-and-a-symbol-of
This is certainly one opinion.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,153


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #281 on: July 20, 2012, 04:06:43 PM »

Wow... I actually agree with Michal Kalina. Thank God I live in an area without snakes and guns.

Have you ever thought about guns in a sexual way?
Back when I was a Marine, I would often sleep with my rifle.

This highlights a good point.  Did you ever have carnal (well, as carnal as steel and wood can be) relations with your rifle?  Did you ever fantasize about having a fulfilling relationship with your rifle?  Did you imagine having a house and a yard and a dog with your rifle, imagining how your little PtA/M14 hybrid children would look like?

Or is it entirely possible that to you the rifle was a tool?  Is it possible to you that there were non sexual reasons for you to have the rifle?  Perhaps sleeping with it had something to do with your training rather than some deep seated sexual desire for it?

Michal does not seem to accept that people who have firearms have them for non sexual reasons.  He seems to be incapable of separating sexual desire from other types of emotions.  It would be fascinating to learn what is the root of his extensive comparisons between firearms and phalluses.  It can be assumed that he is lacking in experience with firearms.  But why would this lack of experience be constantly coupled with something else?  Where did this connection come from?

This is hard for me to come to grasps with.  I mean, there are numerous females out there that I enjoy the company of but have no desire to view in a sexual manner - my mother, younger females that I have met, wives of people I respect...  I can talk to my mother and enjoy her company without sexualizing my relationship with her.  Likewise, I can sleep with a handgun next to my bed without thinking about it once in a sexual manner.  I wonder what causes Michal to hear about firearms and immediately jump to conclusions of a sexual nature?  It's kind of weird, to be honest. 
I have the same confusion, especially when one could attribute the same argument for practically everything in the world.  Pens, pencils, fingernail files, lamps, smoking pipes, cigars, rulers, levels, screwdrivers, and the endless list goes on.  A very confusing way of looking at life.

In an attempt to clear up your confusion, I believe this sexual theme was introduced by MKalina in an attempt to ridicule or silence, through shame, those with whom the poster disagreed.  When you can't counter the message, attack the messenger.

If anyone has read my posts on firearms and their possession, you will see that I (and most, if not all, who agree with my position) have not personally attacked those with whom I disagree.  I have not questioned their personal morality the way some of the anti-gun folks have.  Pointing out perceived faults with, and even ridiculing, your opponents' ARGUMENTS, is different from calling into question your opponents' personal morality.   Such personal attacks are inappropriate,.   

Sometimes it's useful to respond to ridicule with ridicule.
Indeed! Even though my opposition to most proposed gun control laws appears to put me at disagreement with Mike, I do agree with him that Kerdy's statement that guns are not made to kill anyone is totally absurd and deserving of ridicule. Guns ARE made to kill people.
A 410 shotgun was designed for the sole purpose of killing another human being?  Odd way of looking at it.  I disagree.
Not ALL guns are made for the sole purpose of killing another human being; some are made for hunting animals. But you cannot hold yourself immune to ridicule for making the blanket statement that guns are not made for killing people, for some guns are made specifically for that purpose.
Logged
Kerdy
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,735


« Reply #282 on: July 20, 2012, 04:13:24 PM »

Wow... I actually agree with Michal Kalina. Thank God I live in an area without snakes and guns.

Have you ever thought about guns in a sexual way?
Back when I was a Marine, I would often sleep with my rifle.

This highlights a good point.  Did you ever have carnal (well, as carnal as steel and wood can be) relations with your rifle?  Did you ever fantasize about having a fulfilling relationship with your rifle?  Did you imagine having a house and a yard and a dog with your rifle, imagining how your little PtA/M14 hybrid children would look like?

Or is it entirely possible that to you the rifle was a tool?  Is it possible to you that there were non sexual reasons for you to have the rifle?  Perhaps sleeping with it had something to do with your training rather than some deep seated sexual desire for it?

Michal does not seem to accept that people who have firearms have them for non sexual reasons.  He seems to be incapable of separating sexual desire from other types of emotions.  It would be fascinating to learn what is the root of his extensive comparisons between firearms and phalluses.  It can be assumed that he is lacking in experience with firearms.  But why would this lack of experience be constantly coupled with something else?  Where did this connection come from?

This is hard for me to come to grasps with.  I mean, there are numerous females out there that I enjoy the company of but have no desire to view in a sexual manner - my mother, younger females that I have met, wives of people I respect...  I can talk to my mother and enjoy her company without sexualizing my relationship with her.  Likewise, I can sleep with a handgun next to my bed without thinking about it once in a sexual manner.  I wonder what causes Michal to hear about firearms and immediately jump to conclusions of a sexual nature?  It's kind of weird, to be honest. 
I have the same confusion, especially when one could attribute the same argument for practically everything in the world.  Pens, pencils, fingernail files, lamps, smoking pipes, cigars, rulers, levels, screwdrivers, and the endless list goes on.  A very confusing way of looking at life.

In an attempt to clear up your confusion, I believe this sexual theme was introduced by MKalina in an attempt to ridicule or silence, through shame, those with whom the poster disagreed.  When you can't counter the message, attack the messenger.

If anyone has read my posts on firearms and their possession, you will see that I (and most, if not all, who agree with my position) have not personally attacked those with whom I disagree.  I have not questioned their personal morality the way some of the anti-gun folks have.  Pointing out perceived faults with, and even ridiculing, your opponents' ARGUMENTS, is different from calling into question your opponents' personal morality.   Such personal attacks are inappropriate,.   

Sometimes it's useful to respond to ridicule with ridicule.
Indeed! Even though my opposition to most proposed gun control laws appears to put me at disagreement with Mike, I do agree with him that Kerdy's statement that guns are not made to kill anyone is totally absurd and deserving of ridicule. Guns ARE made to kill people.
A 410 shotgun was designed for the sole purpose of killing another human being?  Odd way of looking at it.  I disagree.
Not ALL guns are made for the sole purpose of killing another human being; some are made for hunting animals. But you cannot hold yourself immune to ridicule for making the blanket statement that guns are not made for killing people, for some guns are made specifically for that purpose.

I appreciate your honesty.  I have been waiting for someone to finally admit this much.  But, in truth its all in your approach.  You say some are designed specifically to kill people, which I would not argue (military grade weapons), however, someone may say they were designed to protect the weak and innocent.  The bottom line is, its all in the hands of the user, not the weapon itself. 
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,153


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #283 on: July 20, 2012, 04:13:43 PM »

Firearms are not made to murder or kill anyone.

Some people use them as sexual prosthesises

Quote
How many people do you know who go hunting and carry a pistol for defense against wild animals (snakes, boar, wild dogs or cats)?

It would be a funny thing to see man trying to shoot a snake. Do you shoot mosquitoes too?

Quote
Shotguns and rifles are for hunting, but can be refitted for other applications such as military use, etc.

Yeah, "military use" does not require killing anyone.

Quote
What is wrong with being able to defend your daughter or wife against someone who is about to rape and kill them?  Nothing.  What is wrong with stopping a horrific crime in action in a public area?  Nothing.  What is wrong with eliminating the threat of violence in church?  Nothing.

From the Christian PON? I wouldn't be so sure.
emphasis added

Quote from PeterTheAleut:

But Mike never made that implication, which means you're reading that implication into what he wrote.

Please, pray tell, explain how accusing your opponents of using a firearm "as a sexual prosthesis" is not an attack on one's morality?
How do you get "Mike's opponents" out of his use of the phrase "some people"?

Wouldn't using a firearm as such a prosthesis constitute an act which upon which the Church would frown?
Do you not understand the use of irony and sarcasm as rhetorical devices?

Aside from being an improper personal attack, and not an argument either for, or against CCW in Church,
There's another thread open for the discussion of guns in church. This ain't it.

I also believe such inappropriate "arguments" are inappropriate in the public portion of this forum.
Then report it and let the mods decide. As I see it, and speaking from my perspective as a moderator, Mike has done nothing inappropriate on this thread. He has ridiculed absurd statements without attacking people, which is perfectly in keeping with the rules of the forum.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,153


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #284 on: July 20, 2012, 04:14:49 PM »

Wow... I actually agree with Michal Kalina. Thank God I live in an area without snakes and guns.

Have you ever thought about guns in a sexual way?
Back when I was a Marine, I would often sleep with my rifle.

This highlights a good point.  Did you ever have carnal (well, as carnal as steel and wood can be) relations with your rifle?  Did you ever fantasize about having a fulfilling relationship with your rifle?  Did you imagine having a house and a yard and a dog with your rifle, imagining how your little PtA/M14 hybrid children would look like?

Or is it entirely possible that to you the rifle was a tool?  Is it possible to you that there were non sexual reasons for you to have the rifle?  Perhaps sleeping with it had something to do with your training rather than some deep seated sexual desire for it?

Michal does not seem to accept that people who have firearms have them for non sexual reasons.  He seems to be incapable of separating sexual desire from other types of emotions.  It would be fascinating to learn what is the root of his extensive comparisons between firearms and phalluses.  It can be assumed that he is lacking in experience with firearms.  But why would this lack of experience be constantly coupled with something else?  Where did this connection come from?

This is hard for me to come to grasps with.  I mean, there are numerous females out there that I enjoy the company of but have no desire to view in a sexual manner - my mother, younger females that I have met, wives of people I respect...  I can talk to my mother and enjoy her company without sexualizing my relationship with her.  Likewise, I can sleep with a handgun next to my bed without thinking about it once in a sexual manner.  I wonder what causes Michal to hear about firearms and immediately jump to conclusions of a sexual nature?  It's kind of weird, to be honest.  
I have the same confusion, especially when one could attribute the same argument for practically everything in the world.  Pens, pencils, fingernail files, lamps, smoking pipes, cigars, rulers, levels, screwdrivers, and the endless list goes on.  A very confusing way of looking at life.

In an attempt to clear up your confusion, I believe this sexual theme was introduced by MKalina in an attempt to ridicule or silence, through shame, those with whom the poster disagreed.  When you can't counter the message, attack the messenger.

If anyone has read my posts on firearms and their possession, you will see that I (and most, if not all, who agree with my position) have not personally attacked those with whom I disagree.  I have not questioned their personal morality the way some of the anti-gun folks have.  Pointing out perceived faults with, and even ridiculing, your opponents' ARGUMENTS, is different from calling into question your opponents' personal morality.   Such personal attacks are inappropriate,.  

Sometimes it's useful to respond to ridicule with ridicule.
Indeed! Even though my opposition to most proposed gun control laws appears to put me at disagreement with Mike, I do agree with him that Kerdy's statement that guns are not made to kill anyone is totally absurd and deserving of ridicule. Guns ARE made to kill people.
A 410 shotgun was designed for the sole purpose of killing another human being?  Odd way of looking at it.  I disagree.
Not ALL guns are made for the sole purpose of killing another human being; some are made for hunting animals. But you cannot hold yourself immune to ridicule for making the blanket statement that guns are not made for killing people, for some guns are made specifically for that purpose.

I appreciate your honesty.  I have been waiting for someone to finally admit this much.  But, in truth its all in your approach.  You say some are designed specifically to kill people, which I would not argue (military grade weapons), however, someone may say they were designed to protect the weak and innocent.  The bottom line is, its all in the hands of the user, not the weapon itself.  
On that I agree. I will also agree with you that guns are not made to murder people.
« Last Edit: July 20, 2012, 04:18:55 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,975


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #285 on: July 20, 2012, 04:37:13 PM »

Wow... I actually agree with Michal Kalina. Thank God I live in an area without snakes and guns.

Have you ever thought about guns in a sexual way?
Back when I was a Marine, I would often sleep with my rifle.

This highlights a good point.  Did you ever have carnal (well, as carnal as steel and wood can be) relations with your rifle?  Did you ever fantasize about having a fulfilling relationship with your rifle?  Did you imagine having a house and a yard and a dog with your rifle, imagining how your little PtA/M14 hybrid children would look like?

Or is it entirely possible that to you the rifle was a tool?  Is it possible to you that there were non sexual reasons for you to have the rifle?  Perhaps sleeping with it had something to do with your training rather than some deep seated sexual desire for it?

Michal does not seem to accept that people who have firearms have them for non sexual reasons.  He seems to be incapable of separating sexual desire from other types of emotions.  It would be fascinating to learn what is the root of his extensive comparisons between firearms and phalluses.  It can be assumed that he is lacking in experience with firearms.  But why would this lack of experience be constantly coupled with something else?  Where did this connection come from?

This is hard for me to come to grasps with.  I mean, there are numerous females out there that I enjoy the company of but have no desire to view in a sexual manner - my mother, younger females that I have met, wives of people I respect...  I can talk to my mother and enjoy her company without sexualizing my relationship with her.  Likewise, I can sleep with a handgun next to my bed without thinking about it once in a sexual manner.  I wonder what causes Michal to hear about firearms and immediately jump to conclusions of a sexual nature?  It's kind of weird, to be honest. 
I have the same confusion, especially when one could attribute the same argument for practically everything in the world.  Pens, pencils, fingernail files, lamps, smoking pipes, cigars, rulers, levels, screwdrivers, and the endless list goes on.  A very confusing way of looking at life.

In an attempt to clear up your confusion, I believe this sexual theme was introduced by MKalina in an attempt to ridicule or silence, through shame, those with whom the poster disagreed.  When you can't counter the message, attack the messenger.

If anyone has read my posts on firearms and their possession, you will see that I (and most, if not all, who agree with my position) have not personally attacked those with whom I disagree.  I have not questioned their personal morality the way some of the anti-gun folks have.  Pointing out perceived faults with, and even ridiculing, your opponents' ARGUMENTS, is different from calling into question your opponents' personal morality.   Such personal attacks are inappropriate,.   

Sometimes it's useful to respond to ridicule with ridicule.
Indeed! Even though my opposition to most proposed gun control laws appears to put me at disagreement with Mike, I do agree with him that Kerdy's statement that guns are not made to kill anyone is totally absurd and deserving of ridicule. Guns ARE made to kill people.

So, skeet shooting is not fulfilling the gun's destiny? Unfortunate.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,153


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #286 on: July 20, 2012, 04:55:45 PM »

Wow... I actually agree with Michal Kalina. Thank God I live in an area without snakes and guns.

Have you ever thought about guns in a sexual way?
Back when I was a Marine, I would often sleep with my rifle.

This highlights a good point.  Did you ever have carnal (well, as carnal as steel and wood can be) relations with your rifle?  Did you ever fantasize about having a fulfilling relationship with your rifle?  Did you imagine having a house and a yard and a dog with your rifle, imagining how your little PtA/M14 hybrid children would look like?

Or is it entirely possible that to you the rifle was a tool?  Is it possible to you that there were non sexual reasons for you to have the rifle?  Perhaps sleeping with it had something to do with your training rather than some deep seated sexual desire for it?

Michal does not seem to accept that people who have firearms have them for non sexual reasons.  He seems to be incapable of separating sexual desire from other types of emotions.  It would be fascinating to learn what is the root of his extensive comparisons between firearms and phalluses.  It can be assumed that he is lacking in experience with firearms.  But why would this lack of experience be constantly coupled with something else?  Where did this connection come from?

This is hard for me to come to grasps with.  I mean, there are numerous females out there that I enjoy the company of but have no desire to view in a sexual manner - my mother, younger females that I have met, wives of people I respect...  I can talk to my mother and enjoy her company without sexualizing my relationship with her.  Likewise, I can sleep with a handgun next to my bed without thinking about it once in a sexual manner.  I wonder what causes Michal to hear about firearms and immediately jump to conclusions of a sexual nature?  It's kind of weird, to be honest.  
I have the same confusion, especially when one could attribute the same argument for practically everything in the world.  Pens, pencils, fingernail files, lamps, smoking pipes, cigars, rulers, levels, screwdrivers, and the endless list goes on.  A very confusing way of looking at life.

In an attempt to clear up your confusion, I believe this sexual theme was introduced by MKalina in an attempt to ridicule or silence, through shame, those with whom the poster disagreed.  When you can't counter the message, attack the messenger.

If anyone has read my posts on firearms and their possession, you will see that I (and most, if not all, who agree with my position) have not personally attacked those with whom I disagree.  I have not questioned their personal morality the way some of the anti-gun folks have.  Pointing out perceived faults with, and even ridiculing, your opponents' ARGUMENTS, is different from calling into question your opponents' personal morality.   Such personal attacks are inappropriate,.  

Sometimes it's useful to respond to ridicule with ridicule.
Indeed! Even though my opposition to most proposed gun control laws appears to put me at disagreement with Mike, I do agree with him that Kerdy's statement that guns are not made to kill anyone is totally absurd and deserving of ridicule. Guns ARE made to kill people.

So, skeet shooting is not fulfilling the gun's destiny? Unfortunate.
You ever tried shooting clay pigeons with a machine gun, or shooting gophers with a .30-06?
« Last Edit: July 20, 2012, 04:56:44 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,975


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #287 on: July 20, 2012, 04:57:09 PM »

Wow... I actually agree with Michal Kalina. Thank God I live in an area without snakes and guns.

Have you ever thought about guns in a sexual way?
Back when I was a Marine, I would often sleep with my rifle.

This highlights a good point.  Did you ever have carnal (well, as carnal as steel and wood can be) relations with your rifle?  Did you ever fantasize about having a fulfilling relationship with your rifle?  Did you imagine having a house and a yard and a dog with your rifle, imagining how your little PtA/M14 hybrid children would look like?

Or is it entirely possible that to you the rifle was a tool?  Is it possible to you that there were non sexual reasons for you to have the rifle?  Perhaps sleeping with it had something to do with your training rather than some deep seated sexual desire for it?

Michal does not seem to accept that people who have firearms have them for non sexual reasons.  He seems to be incapable of separating sexual desire from other types of emotions.  It would be fascinating to learn what is the root of his extensive comparisons between firearms and phalluses.  It can be assumed that he is lacking in experience with firearms.  But why would this lack of experience be constantly coupled with something else?  Where did this connection come from?

This is hard for me to come to grasps with.  I mean, there are numerous females out there that I enjoy the company of but have no desire to view in a sexual manner - my mother, younger females that I have met, wives of people I respect...  I can talk to my mother and enjoy her company without sexualizing my relationship with her.  Likewise, I can sleep with a handgun next to my bed without thinking about it once in a sexual manner.  I wonder what causes Michal to hear about firearms and immediately jump to conclusions of a sexual nature?  It's kind of weird, to be honest. 
I have the same confusion, especially when one could attribute the same argument for practically everything in the world.  Pens, pencils, fingernail files, lamps, smoking pipes, cigars, rulers, levels, screwdrivers, and the endless list goes on.  A very confusing way of looking at life.

In an attempt to clear up your confusion, I believe this sexual theme was introduced by MKalina in an attempt to ridicule or silence, through shame, those with whom the poster disagreed.  When you can't counter the message, attack the messenger.

If anyone has read my posts on firearms and their possession, you will see that I (and most, if not all, who agree with my position) have not personally attacked those with whom I disagree.  I have not questioned their personal morality the way some of the anti-gun folks have.  Pointing out perceived faults with, and even ridiculing, your opponents' ARGUMENTS, is different from calling into question your opponents' personal morality.   Such personal attacks are inappropriate,.   

Sometimes it's useful to respond to ridicule with ridicule.
Indeed! Even though my opposition to most proposed gun control laws appears to put me at disagreement with Mike, I do agree with him that Kerdy's statement that guns are not made to kill anyone is totally absurd and deserving of ridicule. Guns ARE made to kill people.

So, skeet shooting is not fulfilling the gun's destiny? Unfortunate.
You ever tried shooting clay pigeons with a machine gun?

You didn't specifically mention machine guns in your snarky blanket statement.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,153


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #288 on: July 20, 2012, 05:20:33 PM »

Wow... I actually agree with Michal Kalina. Thank God I live in an area without snakes and guns.

Have you ever thought about guns in a sexual way?
Back when I was a Marine, I would often sleep with my rifle.

This highlights a good point.  Did you ever have carnal (well, as carnal as steel and wood can be) relations with your rifle?  Did you ever fantasize about having a fulfilling relationship with your rifle?  Did you imagine having a house and a yard and a dog with your rifle, imagining how your little PtA/M14 hybrid children would look like?

Or is it entirely possible that to you the rifle was a tool?  Is it possible to you that there were non sexual reasons for you to have the rifle?  Perhaps sleeping with it had something to do with your training rather than some deep seated sexual desire for it?

Michal does not seem to accept that people who have firearms have them for non sexual reasons.  He seems to be incapable of separating sexual desire from other types of emotions.  It would be fascinating to learn what is the root of his extensive comparisons between firearms and phalluses.  It can be assumed that he is lacking in experience with firearms.  But why would this lack of experience be constantly coupled with something else?  Where did this connection come from?

This is hard for me to come to grasps with.  I mean, there are numerous females out there that I enjoy the company of but have no desire to view in a sexual manner - my mother, younger females that I have met, wives of people I respect...  I can talk to my mother and enjoy her company without sexualizing my relationship with her.  Likewise, I can sleep with a handgun next to my bed without thinking about it once in a sexual manner.  I wonder what causes Michal to hear about firearms and immediately jump to conclusions of a sexual nature?  It's kind of weird, to be honest.  
I have the same confusion, especially when one could attribute the same argument for practically everything in the world.  Pens, pencils, fingernail files, lamps, smoking pipes, cigars, rulers, levels, screwdrivers, and the endless list goes on.  A very confusing way of looking at life.

In an attempt to clear up your confusion, I believe this sexual theme was introduced by MKalina in an attempt to ridicule or silence, through shame, those with whom the poster disagreed.  When you can't counter the message, attack the messenger.

If anyone has read my posts on firearms and their possession, you will see that I (and most, if not all, who agree with my position) have not personally attacked those with whom I disagree.  I have not questioned their personal morality the way some of the anti-gun folks have.  Pointing out perceived faults with, and even ridiculing, your opponents' ARGUMENTS, is different from calling into question your opponents' personal morality.   Such personal attacks are inappropriate,.  

Sometimes it's useful to respond to ridicule with ridicule.
Indeed! Even though my opposition to most proposed gun control laws appears to put me at disagreement with Mike, I do agree with him that Kerdy's statement that guns are not made to kill anyone is totally absurd and deserving of ridicule. Guns ARE made to kill people.

So, skeet shooting is not fulfilling the gun's destiny? Unfortunate.
You ever tried shooting clay pigeons with a machine gun?

You didn't specifically mention machine guns in your snarky blanket statement.
Dude! Why is everyone so touchy today? Shocked

Please tell me you read how I qualified that "snarky blanket statement" some time afterward.
« Last Edit: July 20, 2012, 05:21:53 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,975


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #289 on: July 20, 2012, 05:30:30 PM »

Wow... I actually agree with Michal Kalina. Thank God I live in an area without snakes and guns.

Have you ever thought about guns in a sexual way?
Back when I was a Marine, I would often sleep with my rifle.

This highlights a good point.  Did you ever have carnal (well, as carnal as steel and wood can be) relations with your rifle?  Did you ever fantasize about having a fulfilling relationship with your rifle?  Did you imagine having a house and a yard and a dog with your rifle, imagining how your little PtA/M14 hybrid children would look like?

Or is it entirely possible that to you the rifle was a tool?  Is it possible to you that there were non sexual reasons for you to have the rifle?  Perhaps sleeping with it had something to do with your training rather than some deep seated sexual desire for it?

Michal does not seem to accept that people who have firearms have them for non sexual reasons.  He seems to be incapable of separating sexual desire from other types of emotions.  It would be fascinating to learn what is the root of his extensive comparisons between firearms and phalluses.  It can be assumed that he is lacking in experience with firearms.  But why would this lack of experience be constantly coupled with something else?  Where did this connection come from?

This is hard for me to come to grasps with.  I mean, there are numerous females out there that I enjoy the company of but have no desire to view in a sexual manner - my mother, younger females that I have met, wives of people I respect...  I can talk to my mother and enjoy her company without sexualizing my relationship with her.  Likewise, I can sleep with a handgun next to my bed without thinking about it once in a sexual manner.  I wonder what causes Michal to hear about firearms and immediately jump to conclusions of a sexual nature?  It's kind of weird, to be honest.  
I have the same confusion, especially when one could attribute the same argument for practically everything in the world.  Pens, pencils, fingernail files, lamps, smoking pipes, cigars, rulers, levels, screwdrivers, and the endless list goes on.  A very confusing way of looking at life.

In an attempt to clear up your confusion, I believe this sexual theme was introduced by MKalina in an attempt to ridicule or silence, through shame, those with whom the poster disagreed.  When you can't counter the message, attack the messenger.

If anyone has read my posts on firearms and their possession, you will see that I (and most, if not all, who agree with my position) have not personally attacked those with whom I disagree.  I have not questioned their personal morality the way some of the anti-gun folks have.  Pointing out perceived faults with, and even ridiculing, your opponents' ARGUMENTS, is different from calling into question your opponents' personal morality.   Such personal attacks are inappropriate,.  

Sometimes it's useful to respond to ridicule with ridicule.
Indeed! Even though my opposition to most proposed gun control laws appears to put me at disagreement with Mike, I do agree with him that Kerdy's statement that guns are not made to kill anyone is totally absurd and deserving of ridicule. Guns ARE made to kill people.

So, skeet shooting is not fulfilling the gun's destiny? Unfortunate.
You ever tried shooting clay pigeons with a machine gun?

You didn't specifically mention machine guns in your snarky blanket statement.
Dude! Why is everyone so touchy today? Shocked

Please tell me you read how I qualified that "snarky blanket statement" some time afterward.

I did.

But you should be consistent.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,153


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #290 on: July 20, 2012, 05:33:06 PM »

Wow... I actually agree with Michal Kalina. Thank God I live in an area without snakes and guns.

Have you ever thought about guns in a sexual way?
Back when I was a Marine, I would often sleep with my rifle.

This highlights a good point.  Did you ever have carnal (well, as carnal as steel and wood can be) relations with your rifle?  Did you ever fantasize about having a fulfilling relationship with your rifle?  Did you imagine having a house and a yard and a dog with your rifle, imagining how your little PtA/M14 hybrid children would look like?

Or is it entirely possible that to you the rifle was a tool?  Is it possible to you that there were non sexual reasons for you to have the rifle?  Perhaps sleeping with it had something to do with your training rather than some deep seated sexual desire for it?

Michal does not seem to accept that people who have firearms have them for non sexual reasons.  He seems to be incapable of separating sexual desire from other types of emotions.  It would be fascinating to learn what is the root of his extensive comparisons between firearms and phalluses.  It can be assumed that he is lacking in experience with firearms.  But why would this lack of experience be constantly coupled with something else?  Where did this connection come from?

This is hard for me to come to grasps with.  I mean, there are numerous females out there that I enjoy the company of but have no desire to view in a sexual manner - my mother, younger females that I have met, wives of people I respect...  I can talk to my mother and enjoy her company without sexualizing my relationship with her.  Likewise, I can sleep with a handgun next to my bed without thinking about it once in a sexual manner.  I wonder what causes Michal to hear about firearms and immediately jump to conclusions of a sexual nature?  It's kind of weird, to be honest.  
I have the same confusion, especially when one could attribute the same argument for practically everything in the world.  Pens, pencils, fingernail files, lamps, smoking pipes, cigars, rulers, levels, screwdrivers, and the endless list goes on.  A very confusing way of looking at life.

In an attempt to clear up your confusion, I believe this sexual theme was introduced by MKalina in an attempt to ridicule or silence, through shame, those with whom the poster disagreed.  When you can't counter the message, attack the messenger.

If anyone has read my posts on firearms and their possession, you will see that I (and most, if not all, who agree with my position) have not personally attacked those with whom I disagree.  I have not questioned their personal morality the way some of the anti-gun folks have.  Pointing out perceived faults with, and even ridiculing, your opponents' ARGUMENTS, is different from calling into question your opponents' personal morality.   Such personal attacks are inappropriate,.  

Sometimes it's useful to respond to ridicule with ridicule.
Indeed! Even though my opposition to most proposed gun control laws appears to put me at disagreement with Mike, I do agree with him that Kerdy's statement that guns are not made to kill anyone is totally absurd and deserving of ridicule. Guns ARE made to kill people.

So, skeet shooting is not fulfilling the gun's destiny? Unfortunate.
You ever tried shooting clay pigeons with a machine gun?

You didn't specifically mention machine guns in your snarky blanket statement.
Dude! Why is everyone so touchy today? Shocked

Please tell me you read how I qualified that "snarky blanket statement" some time afterward.

I did.

But you should be consistent.
I am being consistent.
Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,975


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #291 on: July 20, 2012, 05:39:52 PM »

Wow... I actually agree with Michal Kalina. Thank God I live in an area without snakes and guns.

Have you ever thought about guns in a sexual way?
Back when I was a Marine, I would often sleep with my rifle.

This highlights a good point.  Did you ever have carnal (well, as carnal as steel and wood can be) relations with your rifle?  Did you ever fantasize about having a fulfilling relationship with your rifle?  Did you imagine having a house and a yard and a dog with your rifle, imagining how your little PtA/M14 hybrid children would look like?

Or is it entirely possible that to you the rifle was a tool?  Is it possible to you that there were non sexual reasons for you to have the rifle?  Perhaps sleeping with it had something to do with your training rather than some deep seated sexual desire for it?

Michal does not seem to accept that people who have firearms have them for non sexual reasons.  He seems to be incapable of separating sexual desire from other types of emotions.  It would be fascinating to learn what is the root of his extensive comparisons between firearms and phalluses.  It can be assumed that he is lacking in experience with firearms.  But why would this lack of experience be constantly coupled with something else?  Where did this connection come from?

This is hard for me to come to grasps with.  I mean, there are numerous females out there that I enjoy the company of but have no desire to view in a sexual manner - my mother, younger females that I have met, wives of people I respect...  I can talk to my mother and enjoy her company without sexualizing my relationship with her.  Likewise, I can sleep with a handgun next to my bed without thinking about it once in a sexual manner.  I wonder what causes Michal to hear about firearms and immediately jump to conclusions of a sexual nature?  It's kind of weird, to be honest.  
I have the same confusion, especially when one could attribute the same argument for practically everything in the world.  Pens, pencils, fingernail files, lamps, smoking pipes, cigars, rulers, levels, screwdrivers, and the endless list goes on.  A very confusing way of looking at life.

In an attempt to clear up your confusion, I believe this sexual theme was introduced by MKalina in an attempt to ridicule or silence, through shame, those with whom the poster disagreed.  When you can't counter the message, attack the messenger.

If anyone has read my posts on firearms and their possession, you will see that I (and most, if not all, who agree with my position) have not personally attacked those with whom I disagree.  I have not questioned their personal morality the way some of the anti-gun folks have.  Pointing out perceived faults with, and even ridiculing, your opponents' ARGUMENTS, is different from calling into question your opponents' personal morality.   Such personal attacks are inappropriate,.  

Sometimes it's useful to respond to ridicule with ridicule.
Indeed! Even though my opposition to most proposed gun control laws appears to put me at disagreement with Mike, I do agree with him that Kerdy's statement that guns are not made to kill anyone is totally absurd and deserving of ridicule. Guns ARE made to kill people.

So, skeet shooting is not fulfilling the gun's destiny? Unfortunate.
You ever tried shooting clay pigeons with a machine gun?

You didn't specifically mention machine guns in your snarky blanket statement.
Dude! Why is everyone so touchy today? Shocked

Please tell me you read how I qualified that "snarky blanket statement" some time afterward.

I did.

But you should be consistent.
I am being consistent.

LOL.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,975


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #292 on: July 20, 2012, 05:41:43 PM »

You corrected yourself. Then you inserted machine guns. I called you on it. Then you referenced your self-correction, and yet bringing machine guns into the argument was inconsistent with your self-correction.

No big deal.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,153


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #293 on: July 20, 2012, 05:52:18 PM »

You corrected yourself. Then you inserted machine guns. I called you on it. Then you referenced your self-correction, and yet bringing machine guns into the argument was inconsistent with your self-correction.
That's because you didn't understand that I was joking with you (but only with you) to make my other point that many of the posters on this thread have been way too anal today.
« Last Edit: July 20, 2012, 05:53:43 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Kerdy
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,735


« Reply #294 on: July 20, 2012, 08:56:24 PM »

For full disclosure purposes, if I seem anal it is due to one of two reasons. 

1) I perceive an attempt from someone to be disingenuous in some capacity (admittedly not always an accurate assessment).
2) There is a disconnect between what I think a person is saying and what they are actually trying to say.
I have found the second reason is most prevalent and sometimes take effort to realize, but I usually pick up fairly quickly the first.

I do my very best not to allow my emotions to get involved in my posts.  While I am not always successful, I normally succeed.  When emotions flair up, rational dialogue suffers and no one learns anything except how to use sarcasm with each other and that never accomplishes anything good.  But, I do understand the occasional snarky comment just because its fun.

So, if I appear overly anal or obtuse, I ask everyone to understand it is not intentional in most cases.
Logged
vamrat
Vamratoraptor
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Serbian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: New Gracanica
Posts: 8,012



« Reply #295 on: July 20, 2012, 10:43:59 PM »

You corrected yourself. Then you inserted machine guns. I called you on it. Then you referenced your self-correction, and yet bringing machine guns into the argument was inconsistent with your self-correction.
That's because you didn't understand that I was joking with you (but only with you) to make my other point that many of the posters on this thread have been way too anal today.

UGh!  All of you are being way to sexual about this!!!   Grin
Logged

Das ist des Jägers Ehrenschild, daß er beschützt und hegt sein Wild, weidmännisch jagt, wie sich’s gehört, den Schöpfer im Geschöpfe ehrt.
Bigsinner
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA  (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 436



« Reply #296 on: July 20, 2012, 11:23:48 PM »

Firearms are not made to murder or kill anyone.

Some people use them as sexual prosthesises

Quote
How many people do you know who go hunting and carry a pistol for defense against wild animals (snakes, boar, wild dogs or cats)?

It would be a funny thing to see man trying to shoot a snake. Do you shoot mosquitoes too?

Quote
Shotguns and rifles are for hunting, but can be refitted for other applications such as military use, etc.

Yeah, "military use" does not require killing anyone.

Quote
What is wrong with being able to defend your daughter or wife against someone who is about to rape and kill them?  Nothing.  What is wrong with stopping a horrific crime in action in a public area?  Nothing.  What is wrong with eliminating the threat of violence in church?  Nothing.

From the Christian PON? I wouldn't be so sure.
emphasis added

Quote from PeterTheAleut:

But Mike never made that implication, which means you're reading that implication into what he wrote.

Please, pray tell, explain how accusing your opponents of using a firearm "as a sexual prosthesis" is not an attack on one's morality?
How do you get "Mike's opponents" out of his use of the phrase "some people"?

Wouldn't using a firearm as such a prosthesis constitute an act which upon which the Church would frown?
Do you not understand the use of irony and sarcasm as rhetorical devices?

Aside from being an improper personal attack, and not an argument either for, or against CCW in Church,
There's another thread open for the discussion of guns in church. This ain't it.

I also believe such inappropriate "arguments" are inappropriate in the public portion of this forum.
Then report it and let the mods decide. As I see it, and speaking from my perspective as a moderator, Mike has done nothing inappropriate on this thread. He has ridiculed absurd statements without attacking people, which is perfectly in keeping with the rules of the forum.
emphasis added

From Merriam-Webster online dictionary:

1op·po·nent noun \ə-ˈpō-nənt\

Definition of OPPONENT

1
: one that takes an opposite position (as in a debate, contest, or conflict)


If one argues a position opposite of another, then that person is an opponent on that issue.  Unlike some of my opponents, I do not conflate (i.e., confuse) the word "opponent" with the word "enemy".  I have enjoyed many long political and religious arguments with friends;  because I did not treat them as enemies for opposing my views in discussions/arguments (and vice-versa), we remained friends and we always look forward to more of these discussions/arguments.
Logged
Bigsinner
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA  (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 436



« Reply #297 on: July 20, 2012, 11:41:37 PM »

I gotta tell you, I love that this and the Batman movie shooting threads are right next to each other.

It's also interesting that Cinemark, the company that owns the Century 16 Theater in Aurora, apparently has a gun-free zone policy in all of its theaters.

Logged
William
Muted
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,354


« Reply #298 on: July 20, 2012, 11:59:42 PM »

Wow... I actually agree with Michal Kalina. Thank God I live in an area without snakes and guns.

Have you ever thought about guns in a sexual way?
Back when I was a Marine, I would often sleep with my rifle.

Once a Marine.....I slept with mine also. Boot Camp and Vietnam....

You're a Vietnam vet?
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant
Punch
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,801



« Reply #299 on: July 21, 2012, 09:54:33 AM »

Wow... I actually agree with Michal Kalina. Thank God I live in an area without snakes and guns.

Have you ever thought about guns in a sexual way?
Back when I was a Marine, I would often sleep with my rifle.

This highlights a good point.  Did you ever have carnal (well, as carnal as steel and wood can be) relations with your rifle?  Did you ever fantasize about having a fulfilling relationship with your rifle?  Did you imagine having a house and a yard and a dog with your rifle, imagining how your little PtA/M14 hybrid children would look like?

Or is it entirely possible that to you the rifle was a tool?  Is it possible to you that there were non sexual reasons for you to have the rifle?  Perhaps sleeping with it had something to do with your training rather than some deep seated sexual desire for it?

Michal does not seem to accept that people who have firearms have them for non sexual reasons.  He seems to be incapable of separating sexual desire from other types of emotions.  It would be fascinating to learn what is the root of his extensive comparisons between firearms and phalluses.  It can be assumed that he is lacking in experience with firearms.  But why would this lack of experience be constantly coupled with something else?  Where did this connection come from?

This is hard for me to come to grasps with.  I mean, there are numerous females out there that I enjoy the company of but have no desire to view in a sexual manner - my mother, younger females that I have met, wives of people I respect...  I can talk to my mother and enjoy her company without sexualizing my relationship with her.  Likewise, I can sleep with a handgun next to my bed without thinking about it once in a sexual manner.  I wonder what causes Michal to hear about firearms and immediately jump to conclusions of a sexual nature?  It's kind of weird, to be honest. 
I have the same confusion, especially when one could attribute the same argument for practically everything in the world.  Pens, pencils, fingernail files, lamps, smoking pipes, cigars, rulers, levels, screwdrivers, and the endless list goes on.  A very confusing way of looking at life.

In an attempt to clear up your confusion, I believe this sexual theme was introduced by MKalina in an attempt to ridicule or silence, through shame, those with whom the poster disagreed.  When you can't counter the message, attack the messenger.

If anyone has read my posts on firearms and their possession, you will see that I (and most, if not all, who agree with my position) have not personally attacked those with whom I disagree.  I have not questioned their personal morality the way some of the anti-gun folks have.  Pointing out perceived faults with, and even ridiculing, your opponents' ARGUMENTS, is different from calling into question your opponents' personal morality.   Such personal attacks are inappropriate,.   
Why are so many people so inclined to take arguments so personally?
emphasis added

I thought I was clear; however I shall try again.  An impersonal argument criticizing one's position or one's reasoning should not be taken personally.  A personal attack on one's morality should be taken personally.  Do you see the difference?  Implying that your opponent is a pervert because he disagrees with you on gun control is a personal attack, not an argument.



Mike is not a pervert because he believes in gun control.  A lot of very well adjusted people do not like guns.  My wife is one of them.  But most well adjusted people do not think of a penis every time they think of a gun.  I like guns.  I like them a lot.  But I have never thought of them as a penis substitute since it has been my experience that my penis brings me far more enjoyment than my pistols, and given the choice of using one or the other, I would certainly choose my penis.  I also do not think that my penis would have been nearly as effective in stopping the attempted crimes against my person and property that were successfully stopped with my firearms.  I suppose I could whip out my penis and see if it stops someone if I am accosted again.  However, I believe that the only chance that I would have would be if the perpetrator would die from laughing (or at least be disabled long enough for me to get away).  As to other aspects of my hobby as a sport, I do find that the endurance of my pistols is somewhat better than my penis since the rate of fire of even my slowest and hardest to load black powder revolver is much higher than the rate of fire of my penis. So, I am somewhat confused Mikes inability to discuss firearms without bringing up a penis.  I find this particularly confusing since I have seen some of the women from his part of the world, and a penis would be the LAST thing that I thought of if I lived there.  So, it is not Mike that we are lampooning.  It is his fixation on the firearm as a sexual object that strikes us as somewhat perverted.
Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
Punch
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,801



« Reply #300 on: July 21, 2012, 10:05:29 AM »

You ever tried shooting clay pigeons with a machine gun, or shooting gophers with a .30-06?

In the '70's, Remington made a round they called the "Accelerator" that consisted of a .22 cal saboted bullet loaded into a .30-06 cartridge.  I liked it because it allows one to use his pre-'64 Model 70 Winchester .30-06 for shooting gophers without having to spend a lot of money purchasing a similar rifle and scope combination in .22-250 for shooting gophers and ground hogs and other such varmints.

I never shot clay pigeons with a machine gun, just bowling pins.  However, in my younger and dumber days, I did shoot a duck out of the air with a .22 rifle.  I would not attempt to do that again for many safety, legal and other reasons.  However, it did rather impress the two guys that I was hunting with (rabbit hunting) that told me that they bet that I could not do it.  I have also shot a significant number of aluminium cans tossed in the air with a .38 cal revolver using wax bullets.  Ed McGivern was quite good at shooting glass balls (the precursor to clay pigeons) out of the air with a revolver.  One should not limit themselves to stereotypical conventions.
Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,193


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #301 on: July 21, 2012, 10:48:13 AM »

Wow... I actually agree with Michal Kalina. Thank God I live in an area without snakes and guns.

Have you ever thought about guns in a sexual way?
Back when I was a Marine, I would often sleep with my rifle.

Once a Marine.....I slept with mine also. Boot Camp and Vietnam....

You're a Vietnam vet?

Yes.
Logged
BoredMeeting
Loving the Life of a Council Member
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic Christian
Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox/OCA
Posts: 722



« Reply #302 on: July 23, 2012, 04:15:35 PM »

Guns ARE made to kill people.

Does that mean that they can't kill anything else or that it was impossible that they were designed to kill something other than a human, such as a heavy caliber elephant rifle or a .17 cal varmint rifle?

Either way, I MUST be doing something wrong!

I've been shooting firearms for over 35 years and I've never killed anything! I have put lots of holes in paper and clay targets, but that's not the same thing really.
Logged
BoredMeeting
Loving the Life of a Council Member
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic Christian
Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox/OCA
Posts: 722



« Reply #303 on: July 23, 2012, 04:17:10 PM »

I gotta tell you, I love that this and the Batman movie shooting threads are right next to each other.

It's also interesting that Cinemark, the company that owns the Century 16 Theater in Aurora, apparently has a gun-free zone policy in all of its theaters.

The city of Aurora CO also forbids carrying CCW into public places.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2012, 04:17:30 PM by BoredMeeting » Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #304 on: July 23, 2012, 04:23:42 PM »

I have recently come to the conclusion that we as civilians do not need anything more than shotguns, pistols, and hunting rifles. As far as i'm concerned, everything else should be reserved for military and LEO's.
Logged
BoredMeeting
Loving the Life of a Council Member
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic Christian
Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox/OCA
Posts: 722



« Reply #305 on: July 23, 2012, 04:26:12 PM »

Hmm...




“A gun is psychologically a penis-substitute and a symbol of power: the age-range of toy-shop clientele begins at about six or seven, rises sharply just before puberty and declines soon after the discovery of the phallus and its promise of power. From then on, guns are for kids and for the effete freaks and misfits who must seek psycho-orgasmic relief by shooting pheasants.”
― Adam Hall, The Quiller Memorandum

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/75699-a-gun-is-psychologically-a-penis-substitute-and-a-symbol-of

I'll lend some small credence to his theory only after he supplies a videotape of him downing a pheasant in flight using only his penis.

Some of these intellectuals forget that some people still hunt in order to eat!
Logged
BoredMeeting
Loving the Life of a Council Member
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic Christian
Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox/OCA
Posts: 722



« Reply #306 on: July 23, 2012, 04:27:24 PM »

As far as i'm concerned, everything else should be reserved for military and LEO's.
Like the Chinese did at Tianammen Square?
Logged
mike
Warned
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,536


« Reply #307 on: July 23, 2012, 04:27:48 PM »

How do you hunt for nuggets?
Logged
vamrat
Vamratoraptor
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Serbian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: New Gracanica
Posts: 8,012



« Reply #308 on: July 23, 2012, 04:35:47 PM »

As far as i'm concerned, everything else should be reserved for military and LEO's.
Like the Chinese did at Tianammen Square?

Beat me to the punch, but here's another:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woo_Bum-kon#Uiryeong_massacre

Logged

Das ist des Jägers Ehrenschild, daß er beschützt und hegt sein Wild, weidmännisch jagt, wie sich’s gehört, den Schöpfer im Geschöpfe ehrt.
BoredMeeting
Loving the Life of a Council Member
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic Christian
Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox/OCA
Posts: 722



« Reply #309 on: July 23, 2012, 04:40:47 PM »

Some people use them as sexual prosthesises
You appear to have a severe preoccupation with this analogy (as do some others).  What percentage of the world population do you believe uses guns in this way?  My guess would be around 0.0006%, or so, and that is being liberal.  In addition, your comment had very little, if anything, to do with the comment to which you replied.

I have to believe that this is being used in the same way as some folks who yell "Racist!" when you mention that you oppose some policy from Pres. 0bama. It's not really a fact or a cohesive argument, it's just an insult designed to make you go away, thereby allowing them to think they've won the argument.
Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #310 on: July 23, 2012, 04:41:15 PM »

As far as i'm concerned, everything else should be reserved for military and LEO's.
Like the Chinese did at Tianammen Square?

If the US military decided to take on the civilian population, they would win every time. They are highly trained killing machines with the most sophisticated weaponology known to man that can be swiftly executed by air, land and sea. Thinking that a few million people armed with assault rifles will change any of that is simply delusion.
Logged
BoredMeeting
Loving the Life of a Council Member
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic Christian
Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox/OCA
Posts: 722



« Reply #311 on: July 23, 2012, 04:42:37 PM »

How do you hunt for nuggets?
I don't know, how do you?

Although I haven't hunted them, I've known people to make meals of deer, squirrel, groundhog, rabbit, pheasant, wild turkey, and even morning doves.
Logged
BoredMeeting
Loving the Life of a Council Member
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic Christian
Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox/OCA
Posts: 722



« Reply #312 on: July 23, 2012, 04:45:13 PM »

As far as i'm concerned, everything else should be reserved for military and LEO's.
Like the Chinese did at Tianammen Square?

If the US military decided to take on the civilian population, they would win every time. They are highly trained killing machines with the most sophisticated weaponology known to man that can be swiftly executed by air, land and sea. Thinking that a few million people armed with assault rifles will change any of that is simply delusion.

Tell it to the Vietnamese.

Are you assuming that there wouldn't be large numbers of desertions by military personnel after receiving the illegal orders to attack American civilians?

Perhaps you should reconsider who actually comprises the American armed forces and where these folks come from. You'd actually be trying to get them to attack their own families.
Logged
mike
Warned
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,536


« Reply #313 on: July 23, 2012, 04:50:18 PM »

I wonder how your shotguns would respond to that:

Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #314 on: July 23, 2012, 04:53:53 PM »

As far as i'm concerned, everything else should be reserved for military and LEO's.
Like the Chinese did at Tianammen Square?

If the US military decided to take on the civilian population, they would win every time. They are highly trained killing machines with the most sophisticated weaponology known to man that can be swiftly executed by air, land and sea. Thinking that a few million people armed with assault rifles will change any of that is simply delusion.

Tell it to the Vietnamese.

Are you assuming that there wouldn't be large numbers of desertions by military personnel after receiving the illegal orders to attack American civilians?

Perhaps you should reconsider who actually comprises the American armed forces and where these folks come from. You'd actually be trying to get them to attack their own families.

Well, the concern about hurting their own citizens didn't stop the tanks from rolling through Tiananmen. In this case, we would be relying upon the good conscience of the soldiers to not carry out the orders of their superiors, which has nothing to do with the guns that we as civilians possess. Personal safety (fearing our guns) is not a concern for the military, as most orders can be carried out with little or no risk to the soldier (aircraft, UAV, surface to air missiles, etc.) Even with defections, there will always be the faithful who carry out orders, and the rest wouldn't stand a chance (it just takes one guy with his finger on the nuclear buttons, after all). Our best bet would be to hope that other countries would come to our protection if our own government turned against us.
Logged
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.259 seconds with 72 queries.